Uncertainty in Projection of Climate Extremes: A Comparison of CMIP5 and CMIP6

被引:40
作者
Zhang, Shaobo [1 ,2 ]
Chen, Jie [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Wuhan Univ, State Key Lab Water Resources &Hydropower Engn Sc, 299 Bayi Rd, Wuhan 430072, Peoples R China
[2] Wuhan Univ, Hubei Prov Key Lab Water Syst Sci Sponge City Con, Wuhan 430072, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
climate projection uncertainty; uncertainty contribution; Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 (CMIP5) and phase 6 (CMIP6); extreme precipitation and temperature; GENERAL-CIRCULATION MODELS; SURFACE HYDROLOGY PARAMETERIZATION; PRECIPITATION EXTREMES; VARIABILITY; TEMPERATURE; COMPONENTS; TRANSFERABILITY; ENSEMBLES; FEEDBACK; AMERICA;
D O I
10.1007/s13351-021-1012-3
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
Climate projections by global climate models (GCMs) are subject to considerable and multi-source uncertainties. This study aims to compare the uncertainty in projection of precipitation and temperature extremes between Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 (CMIP5) and phase 6 (CMIP6), using 24 GCMs forced by 3 emission scenarios in each phase of CMIP. In this study, the total uncertainty (T) of climate projections is decomposed into the greenhouse gas emission scenario uncertainty (S, mean inter-scenario variance of the signals over all the models), GCM uncertainty (M, mean inter-model variance of signals over all emission scenarios), and internal climate variability uncertainty (V, variance in noises over all models, emission scenarios, and projection lead times); namely, T = S + M + V. The results of analysis demonstrate that the magnitudes of S, M, and T present similarly increasing trends over the 21st century. The magnitudes of S, M, V, and T in CMIP6 are 0.94-0.96, 1.38-2.07, 1.04-1.69, and 1.20-1.93 times as high as those in CMIP5. Both CMIP5 and CMIP6 exhibit similar spatial variation patterns of uncertainties and similar ranks of contributions from different sources of uncertainties. The uncertainty for precipitation is lower in midlatitudes and parts of the equatorial region, but higher in low latitudes and the polar region. The uncertainty for temperature is higher over land areas than oceans, and higher in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere. For precipitation, T is mainly determined by M and V in the early 21st century, by M and S at the end of the 21st century; and the turning point will appear in the 2070s. For temperature, T is dominated by M in the early 21st century, and by S at the end of the 21st century, with the turning point occuring in the 2060s. The relative contributions of S to T in CMIP6 (12.5%-14.3% for precipitation and 31.6%-36.2% for temperature) are lower than those in CMIP5 (15.1%-17.5% for precipitation and 38.6%-43.8% for temperature). By contrast, the relative contributions of M in CMIP6 (50.6%-59.8% for precipitation and 59.4%-60.3% for temperature) are higher than those in CMIP5 (47.5%-57.9% for precipitation and 51.7%-53.6% for temperature). The higher magnitude and relative contributions of M in CMIP6 indicate larger difference among projections of various GCMs. Therefore, more GCMs are needed to ensure the robustness of climate projections.
引用
收藏
页码:646 / 662
页数:17
相关论文
共 66 条
  • [1] Changes in precipitation and temperature extremes in Central America and northern South America, 1961-2003 -: art. no. D23107
    Aguilar, E
    Peterson, TC
    Obando, PR
    Frutos, R
    Retana, JA
    Solera, M
    Soley, J
    García, IG
    Araujo, RM
    Santos, AR
    Valle, VE
    Brunet, M
    Aguilar, L
    Alvarez, L
    Bautista, M
    Castañón, C
    Herrera, L
    Ruano, E
    Sinay, JJ
    Sánchez, E
    Oviedo, GIH
    Obed, F
    Salgado, JE
    Vázquez, JL
    Baca, M
    Gutiérrez, M
    Centella, C
    Espinosa, J
    Martínez, D
    Olmedo, B
    Espinoza, CEO
    Núñez, R
    Haylock, M
    Benavides, H
    Mayorga, R
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2005, 110 (D23) : 1 - 15
  • [2] Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change
    Allen, MR
    Stott, PA
    Mitchell, JFB
    Schnur, R
    Delworth, TL
    [J]. NATURE, 2000, 407 (6804) : 617 - 620
  • [3] Evaluation of historical and future simulations of precipitation and temperature in central Africa from CMIP5 climate models
    Aloysius, Noel R.
    Sheffield, Justin
    Saiers, James E.
    Li, Haibin
    Wood, Eric F.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2016, 121 (01) : 130 - 152
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2011, CLIMATIC CHANGE, DOI DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0157-y
  • [5] Analysis of uncertainties in future climate projections for South America: comparison of WCRP-CMIP3 and WCRP-CMIP5 models
    Blazquez, Josefina
    Nunez, Mario N.
    [J]. CLIMATE DYNAMICS, 2013, 41 (3-4) : 1039 - 1056
  • [6] Scenario and modelling uncertainty in global mean temperature change derived from emission-driven global climate models
    Booth, B. B. B.
    Bernie, D.
    McNeall, D.
    Hawkins, E.
    Caesar, J.
    Boulton, C.
    Friedlingstein, P.
    Sexton, D. M. H.
    [J]. EARTH SYSTEM DYNAMICS, 2013, 4 (01) : 95 - 108
  • [7] Significance of model credibility in estimating climate projection distributions for regional hydroclimatological risk assessments
    Brekke, Levi D.
    Dettinger, Michael D.
    Maurer, Edwin P.
    Anderson, Michael
    [J]. CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2008, 89 (3-4) : 371 - 394
  • [8] INTERCOMPARISON AND INTERPRETATION OF CLIMATE FEEDBACK PROCESSES IN 19 ATMOSPHERIC GENERAL-CIRCULATION MODELS
    CESS, RD
    POTTER, GL
    BLANCHET, JP
    BOER, GJ
    DELGENIO, AD
    DEQUE, M
    DYMNIKOV, V
    GALIN, V
    GATES, WL
    GHAN, SJ
    KIEHL, JT
    LACIS, AA
    LETREUT, H
    LI, ZX
    LIANG, XZ
    MCAVANEY, BJ
    MELESHKO, VP
    MITCHELL, JFB
    MORCRETTE, JJ
    RANDALL, DA
    RIKUS, L
    ROECKNER, E
    ROYER, JF
    SCHLESE, U
    SHEININ, DA
    SLINGO, A
    SOKOLOV, AP
    TAYLOR, KE
    WASHINGTON, WM
    WETHERALD, RT
    YAGAI, I
    ZHANG, MH
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 1990, 95 (D10) : 16601 - 16615
  • [9] Cloud feedback in atmospheric general circulation models: An update
    Cess, RD
    Zhang, MH
    Ingram, WJ
    Potter, GL
    Alskseev, V
    Barker, HW
    Cohen-Solal, E
    Colman, RA
    Dazlich, DA
    Del Genio, AD
    Dix, MR
    Dymnikov, V
    Esch, M
    Fowler, LD
    Fraser, JR
    Galin, V
    Gates, WL
    Hack, JJ
    Kiehl, JT
    Le Treut, H
    Lo, KKW
    McAvaney, BJ
    Meleshko, VP
    Morcrette, JJ
    Randall, DA
    Roeckner, E
    Royer, JF
    Schlesinger, ME
    Sporyshev, PV
    Timbal, B
    Volodin, EM
    Taylor, KE
    Wang, W
    Wetherald, RT
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 1996, 101 (D8) : 12791 - 12794
  • [10] Transferability of optimally-selected climate models in the quantification of climate change impacts on hydrology
    Chen, Jie
    Brissette, Francois P.
    Lucas-Picher, Philippe
    [J]. CLIMATE DYNAMICS, 2016, 47 (9-10) : 3359 - 3372